Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Epic Fail

How is it possible to blow such an easy win? Last night, a Phoenix team at nearly full strength (minus Barbosa), featuring 4 former first-team all-NBA players, lost to a Jazz team featuring CJ Miles, Jarron Collins, Ronnie Price, and Ronnie Brewer in the starting lineup. After a good first quarter, Phoenix got outscored the rest of the way by 21. PHX clearly underestimated the fight in their opponents. All the other West contenders including Utah must be pleased upon seeing Phoenix's lackadaisacal attitude. To be fair, it's not always easy to put forth your best effort every night when you have 82 games plus several more in the playoffs to look forward to. One might hope that huge salaries would provide sufficient reason to stiffen a player's work ethic and give the fans their money's worth, but the impulse to slack is fairly universal. Why was the CEO of Bear Stearns golfing, playing bridge, and smoking pot back in the summer of ’07 while his company was going to hell?


Perhaps it helps that Utah has a guy of Greek descent on their team. One of the greatest upsets in basketball history was surely the 2006 semifinal match at the FIBA World Championship, in which a US team full of superstars could barely stop some big dude with the dimensions of Oliver Miller. Famously, the US coach was so poorly prepared that he didn't know the Greek players’ names. (He can hardly use the excuse that their names were too hard to pronounce, when his own name is a phonetic Rubik's Cube!) So another reason to underperform against an inferior opponent is not just laziness, but perhaps hubris, or even contempt for your adversary. Contempt might make you want to destroy your opponent on one side of the court, but you are less likely to get back on D if you don't take their ability and resolve seriously.


Fans of the NFL love the phrase "Any Given Sunday", suggesting that random shizz can lead to unexpected results. The Patriots were not supposed to win in the 2002 Super Bowl, and they were not supposed to lose in the 2008 Super Bowl. That's just as true in the NBA, but we tend to notice anomalous outcomes less when there's 81 other games in the season, compared to 16 total games in the NFL. It's much more likely in hoops that the best teams will end up with the best records. In future posts I will further explore these issues of sample size. Yet sometimes the conventional wisdom is wrong. If Tyson fought Douglas 9 more times, would Tyson take all 9 bouts? Well, if Douglas figured out how to avoid Tyson's knockout blows, probably not. Maybe Tyson was simply overhyped. During his first reign, he never fought Holyfield, after all.

...........................

UPDATE: John Hollinger suggests that Phoenix lost not due to the above, but because Shaq was tired.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Bringing Balance to the Force

I caught the Nuggets-Celtics game on television last night. Boston was getting bullied by defensive hustle plays: Nenê Hilario repeatedly ripped the ball out of Celtics’ hands; Renaldo Balkman, as advertised, always chased down loose balls, and quixotically got a lot of court time. Chauncey Billups was steady down the stretch and maintained the team’s cool every time Boston made a comeback.

Many critics have shredded Denver’s decision to jettison Marcus Camby for a draft pick last summer. But in light of this second trade, I think it makes more sense. The roster and salary structure were badly unbalanced in 2007-08. Denver was paying about $30 MM to the troika of Martin, Hilario, and Camby, three oft-injured big men. You don’t need to be paying star money to three of those guys. Two, maybe. Meanwhile, Denver had three volume scorers in Smith, Anthony and Iverson who couldn’t really co-exist together. Smith needed to be resigned in the summer of ’08, adding further pressure to the salary load. Iverson’s contract ends after 2008-09 and Denver was unlikely to re-sign him; they weren’t getting anywhere in the playoffs with him. So in 2009-10, Denver could (i) be paying $7.65 MM to Camby, or alternatively (ii) they could acquire a suitable point guard like Billups (who gets paid $12.1 MM that year) who could expertly run the show. Camby is older than Martin and Hilario (and his contract seems the most sensible of the three) so it was easier and more logical to trade him.

I think the outlook for Denver now is certainly better than it was six months ago. If only Carmelo could learn to play defense…

Monday, November 10, 2008

Mad Melo Men


The photo above shows the side of a bus stop shelter near my apartment in Chicago, taken on November 8th. It struck me because I have never seen any advertisement wherein Carmelo Anthony endorses Powerade, other than this image. This industry trade article from earlier this summer announces the participation of these three guys (including Merriman and Howard) in Powerade’s latest ad campaign.

I’ve always thought that a good advertisement needs to be clever, memorable, and tell you something about the intrinsic qualities of the product. Even in a commodified industry where the product has little intrinsic to distinguish it from its competitors (really, what the hell is the difference between TAG body spray and AXE?) the “package” of the product can include an enticing set of cultural memories and associations. I still have no clue what makes Flintstone vitamins better than CVS brand, but their jingle is incredibly warming; why would I want to miss out on the 10 million strong and growing? And I almost feel like a New England aristocrat when I take the time to taste the Welch’s and savor all that Concord flavor.

The Powerade ad reminded me of two other recent ad campaigns that involved no creativity. In 2005, Fidelity Investments signed up Paul McCartney to license stock footage of his image and music in several print and TV ads, and a few years earlier Accenture signed Tiger Woods for similar purposes. You’ve probably seen the Accenture ads at airports: an image of Woods playing golf and looking thoughtful, with a lame caption like “10% imagination, 90% perspiration”. Any company on the planet could publish that ad, so why should I believe that Accenture is uniquely resonant with the Woods ethos?

For each of these campaigns, one can always find business school professors or marketing practitioners willing to drop fancy quotes about brand synergy or strategic partnerships. But my first question when I see one of these ads is, why was the star willing to sell out his image for cold cash and nothing more? If a representative of Coca-Cola or BMW came to me and asked to use my name and likeness in advertising, I would insist that they craft a brilliant campaign around me, possibly involving me training first to put on 20 pounds of muscle and to sing classical opera. I would not say, “Sure, how much?” While I am sure Woods’s agents have carefully negotiated how Accenture may and may not depict him, he creates no new self for the campaign. We learn nothing new about him from the arrangement.


Ads with basketball stars, though, are not known for this frozen depiction of the talent. The best ad campaigns involving NBA players have drawn upon real feuds, real character, and real charisma. I think everyone who watched the 1992 Super Bowl remembers the one with Jordan and Bird attempting to make increasingly outlandish shots, each attempt ending with the brash prediction, “Nothing but net.” The early irreverence of Young Shaq was summarily dealt with in an ad by his shoe company where he paid proper homage to the great bigs of old. More recently, Nike and even VitaminWater have rather expertly employed the acting chops of LeBron James in varying roles including messiah, CEO, and crusading litigator. I don’t know a thing about LeBron as a person (other than that he named his first son LeBron Jr., which at age 19 was fairly obnoxious), but from his ads I have acquired the impression that he is a cool guy, and it makes me want to follow his career and buy his stuff.

So why do we see these lame campaigns involving McCartney, Tiger, and Carmelo? Why didn’t the client bother to obtain a measure of creativity, rather than just sticking the likeness of some famous dude on a billboard or a video? There is a school that holds advertising to be nothing more than a conspicuous form of money-burning: a way for high-quality sellers to signal their goodness in a market where consumers can’t tell the difference between VitaminWater and Kool-Aid. The theory is that high-quality sellers anticipate repeat business, so expensive advertising is worth it for them, but it’s not worthwhile for low-quality sellers; thus, if you see ostentatious advertising, it must be a high-quality seller. Many Super Bowl ads are like this. Only one Internet domain name registrar advertised during the 2006 Super Bowl, and their ad, while clever, said very little about the product. And what could they say? You go to a website, you type in your desired URL, you give your credit card number. There’s not a lot to sell there.

So what motivated Fidelity and Accenture here? I can’t imagine it’s because the client was stingy with its advertising budget and didn’t want to pay the ad agency to spend the time thinking of something creative and producing the content; the hourly rates charged by the ad firms surely are dwarfed, or at least equalled, by the compensation given to these athletes and entertainers. Presumably the advertising houses came up with these ideas and somehow convinced the marketing chiefs at the companies to sign off. The marketing chiefs apparently think that a display of pure money-burning, with no obvious effort to entertain, must be enough. It’s certainly not enough for me; I find myself actively repulsed from such a campaign.

More importantly, there is a great onus upon the star himself to decide how his persona shall be constructed and interpreted in the public square. Tiger Woods has been content since becoming a superstar to remain a mystery: he rarely talks of anything other than golf. The Accenture deal thus seems perfect for him. McCartney, I think, has shepherded his image very carefully (even trying to change the old “Lennon-McCartney” songwriting credits to “McCartney-Lennon” on the songs where he deemed that appropriate) so it is less clear why he would turn everything over to Team Fidelity. Perhaps at age 63, he just didn’t care anymore.

Carmelo, though, has no excuse. He is hardly a folk hero, after he lost face with bourgeois America in the Stop Snitching episode and he lost all his street cred when he slapped Mardy Collins (who?) and quickly ran away before Collins could parry. This is a time for Carmelo to rebuild his image, particularly after successfully bringing a gold medal home. He should not agree to have his image in lights doing nothing, allowing others to shine their own avatar of Carmelo Anthony upon bus stop shelters across the land. He should actively be sketching a new Melo. Why does LeBron get all the cool ads? My impression from watching Melo’s interviews is that he is less articulate and outgoing than LeBron, but surely a campaign could be crafted that relied on his non-verbal strengths. If Colin Powell is now a revered elder statesman once more after lying at the UN, anyone can have a second chance, no?

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

I Like It When You Call Me Big Poppa

I am hardly an academic, but I am sure that sociologists would say that occupation is “heritable” to some extent: we see many children following in their parents’ footsteps, much more than we would expect if jobs were assigned by random chance. Certainly, a frightening number of my classmates in law school had lawyers for parents. (My parents, meanwhile, would probably like me to work in a job where I order screws for a company that makes ovens or motorboats. Like Warren Buffett, if they don’t understand it, they don’t really like it.)

Basketball is no exception. Tony Parker (Jr.)’s father is an American who settled in France to play pro ball after he couldn’t find stardom in the NBA. Kobe Bryant’s father similarly struggled in the US game before becoming a star in Italy and raising his son there. The Barry boys, Sean May, Patrick Ewing Jr., Chris Collins, Luke Walton, Mike Bibby, Mike Dunleavy, Al Horford: all are the children of ex-NBAers, many of whom are still involved in the sport as announcers or coaches. These are the blue-chippers, athletes whose potential was identified almost from the start. Back in suburban Detroit, I attended middle school with a young man whose father had played for the Lions. He was the brashest, boldest boy in the sixth grade. I sometimes played lunchtime hoops with him, though his talent easily overmastered my gusto. And sure enough, that boy grew up to play in the NFL himself.

Children of athletes receive a package of multiple endowments from their parents that can help them to succeed: genetic traits (I will call this “nature”), an upbringing that cultivates their athletic talent (“nurture”), and the savvy to help them succeed in the business of sports (“street smarts”). Of course, each second-generation athlete receives a unique three-part combination of endowments.



Basketball is the most notable field of endeavor, and certainly the most notable of sports, where aptitude and achievement are strongly heritable – because, as they say, you can’t teach height. It is hard to appreciate how freakish these guys are until you meet them. I am slightly above 5’11” and I am usually the tallest person in any group of friends or colleagues. I have a 6’4” friend and he is a giant to me. And yet he would be considered undersized to play the 2 in the NBA.


To be the pubescent child of a basketball player is like waking up one day and discovering a lightning bolt burning through your forehead: a gift you cannot discard. Everyone can see that you are tall, and everyone knows who your daddy was. Following in your father’s footsteps is not easy. Like Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, a prophecy has surrounded many of these man-children since their birth. On the other hand, if your dad is a billionaire attorney, it’s easier to just do your own thing. There’s no gene for deal-making.

Consider Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. When your mom’s father was a pro wrestler, your dad was a pro wrestler, and you have a few cousins playing O-line in the NFL, you are certainly marked for greatness in something. Johnson had the full three-pack of heredity: nature, nurture, and street smarts. After winning a college championship with the University of Miami, Johnson had limited success in pro football, then became arguably the WWF’s biggest star as a wrestler, and now is one of the only action heroes in film today. The movie star part is a delightful surprise, but in a way, his youth among travelling performers of the ring prepared him to emote and give a 1000-watt smile. (Certainly Hollywood stardom running in a family is nothing new.) Or behold Randy Orton, who grew up in WWF locker rooms with his father and grandfather. What else could he become?

The most piquant exemplar of this is Yao Ming, who was bred, like a prize-losing science experiment, to be a basketball player. His parents were probably two of the tallest people in China, so it was fervently hoped that Yao would be a big one. And young Ming did not disappoint. Yao received plenty of nature and plenty of nurture from the Chinese government, though he probably learned little of the subtleties about how to succeed in the NBA world. By many accounts, Yao has picked up an American ‘edge’ in the last six years, to the point that he was willing to publicly call out Ron Artest last summer. Yao has succeeded as a superstar and kept his nose clean despite having only two of the three endowments.

There are several NBA players who are not the sons of basketballers, but rather the sons of athletes in other endeavors: Grant Hill, Joakim Noah, Mike Conley Jr. From their dads they surely inherited some natural athletic ability, as well as their parents’ intuition as to how the game of pro sports operates. More importantly, all these guys, including the Bryants and Bibbys, grew up with significant privilege. Like the children of most any millionaire, no expense was spared to secure the finest coaches and facilities for the little ones.


There is a third category of second-generation stars, including Cheryl Ford and Jalen Rose, who for a long time didn’t even know that they had NBA stars for fathers. Ford didn’t meet her father until she was 17, and Rose’s father died before they could meet. It’s not every day that one of my colleagues in my law firm announces that he or she is the unwanted child of a former NBA superstar. It fact, it hasn’t happened. Yet in pro sports it seems to happen every year. I would guess that at least a handful of current NBA stars unknowingly have NBA fathers. Clearly “nature” alone can deliver a significant nudge to forge a young athlete.

Did you know, by the way, that in Japan a rice bowl with chicken and fried egg is called "oya-ko donburi" (親子丼)? Literally, "Oya" means parent and "ko" means child. I always thought that was cute. There's something sinister about cooking and devouring the father and son together, though. Each should be insulated from the other's tragedy.

It is difficult for a young man to forge his own identity when his father’s specter is forever shadowing him. Last June, ESPN/ABC ran a fluffy feature showing Bill and Luke Walton on their family couch, reminiscing about early driveway games. That was sweet and moving. But then big Bill, with rightly-earned gravitas, turned right around and picked the Celtics to win the Finals. Ouch. It must be hard for Luke to accept that without the height of a giant or the agility of a slasher, he will never surpass his father’s greatness. The same goes double for Patrick Ewing Jr., who couldn’t make the Knicks’ roster (losing out to some guy from Istanbul) even when everyone thought he would get a charity spot.

Conventional wisdom has it that politics is a family business. Politicians openly acknowledge their royal pretensions, titling their books “A Charge to Keep” or “Faith of My Fathers.” Success among leaders seems heritable to some extent: witness Al Gore, the Bush boys, Mitt Romney, the Kennedys. (Travelling through New Mexico recently, I became aware of the race for the state’s Third District congressional seat, between this guy and this guy. Or consider the current U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire, a Lebanese smackdown between the son of this guy and the wife of this guy. Who is likely to take Obama’s Senate seat if BHO wins the presidency? Why, Jesse Jackson Jr.)

Elsewhere in the world, the Assads, the Kabilas, the Kirchners, the Bhuttos, and the Sukarnos engineer their own filial succession in nominal democracies. In Japan, it seems that being the grandchild or child of a former prime minister is a prerequisite for becoming PM yourself. But of course there are many counter-examples of successful pols who grew up in the most inhospitable conditions, or devoid of any obvious role models. Witness Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Pierre Trudeau, or even Nicolas Sarkozy, all self-made, all without father figures from a young age, and sui generis. They had neither nature or nurture, and they apparently taught themselves the know-how.


Patrilineal succession works in politics for somewhat different reasons than in basketball. There is no obvious innate trait that marks a newborn babe as a future politician. It may be that children of political families become unusually steeped in the mechanics of campaigns and governance. Their father’s (or sometimes mother’s) profession is unusually exciting: who has not, just for a moment, imagined himself the king of the world and an object of mass adulation? Most importantly, voters make decisions on a variety of “gut” factors, including name recognition. How else could an Italian woman become the head of India’s founding party? Many Republican voters in 2000 thought they were restoring the former President Bush to power. Basketball is not quite like that. Coaches might give Coby Karl a second look because of his father, but if he has no game, he will ride the bench. Even Michael Jordan’s kid could barely earn a college scholarship, and chose to be a walk-on elsewhere.

What exactly makes George W. Bush a successful politician? (Put aside the failure of his presidency on the merits; one cannot gainsay that he won four elections in a row from 1994 to 2004.) It is not obvious that he inherited any preternatural charisma from his father, through either nature or nurture. The elder Bush was a very good fonctionnaire for the Republicans throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, but he was not a people person. Bush, though, is roundly thought to be funny and charming, and has attracted great loyalty from his Texas associates.

A seminal episode in the life of the younger Bush came when a drunken Dubya, frustrated at his lack of success in life and his failure to equal in any way his father’s accomplishments-to-age-40 (Dubya lost his first political race at age 32, launched solely on name recognition, and then his oil ventures failed to make money), challenged his old man to a fist fight. The story is so juicy as to raise the scent of apocrypha, but somehow I can imagine “Smoke ‘em out” George, who has no sense of shame or irony, raising his dukes.

In the Bush family, politics is a duty, a calling. The father and grandfather of our current president were national politicians, and his great-grandfathers were wealthy capitalists. All the Bush men attend Yale and join Skull and Bones, and then they enter public service. (The next generation of Bushes will likely not be excluded.) But entering politics is an option. Jeb and George W. chose to run, while their two brothers chose other vocations. Your freedom is not so clear when you are the tallest kid in your class. For the children of NBA ballers, height and handle can be both a gift and a curse.



Mike Bibby did not hear from his father for years while the elder Bibby pursued a coaching career, even when they played and coached in the same college conference. Kobe Bryant did not speak to his father for many years after his marriage. After finally acknowledging his children Cheryl and Daryl, Karl Malone still refuses to acknowledge his son Demetrius, who has since made the NFL. Each of these older men may have his own independent reasons for such behavior, but could it be that part of the challenge of relating to a ball-playing child is the pain of watching your child struggle and learn exactly as you did, and being powerless to help? Or in some cases, it may be the sting, which you may not acknowledge, of seeing your child surpassing your achievements.

To be Jellybean Joe Bryant is rather like the challenge of Darth Vader née Anakin: Your son is rapidly appearing more accomplished than you ever were — your talents squandered by youthful hubris. Shall you destroy your son, or make him your protege? Your love makes the first unthinkable, but the second may be unbearable. Each of these options brings its own pain; it might be easier to just leave him alone, at least until he makes trouble. Above all, though you feel this only in seclusion with yourself, the son of Skywalker cannot be allowed to become a Jedi. Your college trophies might not look so impressive anymore.


But this is hardly unique to ball. Professional wrestler Dustin Rhodes (aka “Goldust”), the son of southern legend Dusty, did not talk to his father for many years, perhaps in part because Dustin adopted a damn weird persona in an attempt to build his own identity. Exactly what endowment did Dustin receive from his father that enabled him to succeed as a wrestler? It sure wasn’t big Dust’s chiseled physique. (If Dusty were my dad, I would thank God every day that I ended up with this body and no more.) It was probably a love for the wrestling life and an unconscious imitation of the big guy’s fiery goofiness. The two eventually reconciled, but the pressure of living your life knowing that there is one path you are “supposed” to trod, and that any other fork is abominable, could surely be too much.

On this Election Day (and the first official week of my Yahoo basketball league) I can only wish: Let fathers and sons across the land agree to be civil, even if they vote differently or their fantasy teams are pitted head-to-head!

UPDATE: After I wrote this, I wrote two more follow-up posts later in November about parent-child NBA combos, here and here.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Always Be Closing

With the Iverson trade, Joe Dumars proved again today why he is the best general manager in the league. In the last 8 years, he has completed the following deals, each of which was seen as a risk at the time. By risky I mean that the possible volatility of outcomes was wide; the deal could have been a strikeout, or a home run. What’s more, in several of these cases, observers saw only the negative possibility, and not the positive. Other than the Darko selection (and perhaps letting Okur migrate to Utah), each of these decisions was ultimately vindicated. Only time will tell whether the last two on this list were wise decisions.

· Trading an injured Grant Hill for Ben Wallace (who?)
· Hiring Rick Carlisle (who?)
· Signing journeyman Chauncey Billups
· Trading Jerry Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton
· Drafting Tayshaun Prince over NCAA champions Lonny Baxter and Carlos Boozer
· Drafting Darko Milicic (who?) over Wade, Bosh, Anthony, Hinrich, Ford
· Dumping Carlisle for Larry Brown after two 50-win seasons
· Trading for the fiery Rasheed Wallace
· Letting Mehmet Okur walk away for nothing
· Signing washed-up Antonio McDyess
· Dumping Larry Brown for Flip Saunders after two NBA Finals trips
· Drafting Amir Johnson from high school
· Trading Darko before he established his potential
· Letting Ben Wallace walk for nothing
· Drafting Rodney Stuckey over, among others, the All-American Alando Tucker and the top college shot blocker Sean Williams
· Re-signing Billups at $12 MM / year
· Dumping Flip Saunders for Michael Curry after three conference finals
· Trading Billups for Allen Iverson

A basic principle of finance is that consistently higher risk is required for consistently higher returns. Yet Dumars always seems to win these bets, save for the Darko selection. Were they truly risky? Perhaps with the benefit of ex post analysis we can see that contemporaneous observers were wrong about the possible outcomes of these deals. Perhaps Dumars has better information than the market: he clearly knew something about Hill’s ankle injury (and something about Ben Wallace's ability) that Orlando didn’t, and he saw potential in players like Billups and McDyess that no one else perceived. Or alternatively/additionally, perhaps Dumars always has a really good hedging strategy on his bets. Carlisle was seen as a tightass, but luckily Dumars was able to reach out to a Hall of Fame coach to replace him immediately when the players began to chafe. The first Billups signing in 2002 was surprising, but the contract sum was relatively low, and trading a former #3 selected point guard is not difficult. Darko was a risk, but teams always salivate over big men with untapped potential, so Dumars knew that he could easy dump Milicic on another team (the Magic again! … hmmm) if he didn’t quickly blossom. Rasheed Wallace was prone to explosions, but at the time of the February 2004 trade, his contract was soon to expire; at the least, Dumars could leverage him into a quick run to the Finals in a weak East. Amir Johnson was an unknown figure, but he was chosen late in the second round when there were no other obvious gems on the board, and Detroit’s deep frontcourt of the Wallaces and McDyess meant that Johnson could develop slowly. Sure, he might go bust, but then Dumars would not lose a lot of investment principal.

If Dumars wants to switch to a second career with Goldman Sachs, I am sure there is a seat waiting for him. Remember that only Goldman survived the subprime mortgage crisis unscathed... and they did it by some smart hedging.


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Satisfaction Or Your Money Back

Just a few days ago, John McCain stepped up his game, claiming that there is no chance of his losing the election. Governor Palin guarantees that her side will take Pennsylvania. I think most people reflexively pay little attention to that. Do undecided voters really want so much bravado in their leaders? But it reminded me that politicians are not the only competitors who like to guarantee victory.

Last May, Jameer Nelson “guaranteed” that his Magic, down 3-1 to the Pistons, could eke out game 5. Oops, that didn’t work out so well. Speaking of the Pistons, their starting F-C is known for his hastily issued “Guaran-sheeds” of victory. His most famous guarantee, I think, came before the fourth game of the 2006 Eastern Conference Semifinals. Whoops again: LeBron took over the final quarter and the Cavs eked out a victory. Since then, Rasheed doesn’t make a lot of guarantees.

In business, third-party guarantees are usually used when a borrower (whether an individual or a company) lacks the credit-worthiness to give sufficient comfort of repayment to a lender. Guarantees can also be used in ordinary commercial sales or services contracts in place of a letter of credit, to provide comfort in case the seller doesn’t sell or the buyer doesn’t pay. A guarantee is just a written contract: a promise to pay. The guarantor, often a family member (of an individual) or corporate affiliate (of a company) pledges to pay the borrower’s obligations if the borrower fails to. The point is that the guarantor really will be on the hook if the borrower defaults or otherwise screws up.

The most famous guarantee in modern sports came when a young Joe Namath, pilot of the New York Jets, guaranteed victory against the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl 3. These boasts were then quite novel (who could be so brash to question the right of reign of the great Unitas?) and Namath surely would have lost much face if his team had not come through. Accounts of that game since then still center on Namath’s audacity. It is fair to say that if the Colts had pulled out the win, Namath’s subsequent image as a James Bond-esque son of a gun would never have arisen. Namath would probably be forever known as the kid who ran his mouth too much.



It is fair to say that a third-party guarantee promotes (value-adding) transactions not only by giving comfort of performance to the recipient of the guarantee, but also placing an extra burden on the original obligated party. The obligated party now really doesn’t want to screw up, lest he (or it) cause reputational and financial loss to the guarantor, which may be a close family member or a corporate parent. This dynamic is unquestionably found in sports. When R-Dub makes a “guaran-sheed”, his team wants to back him up, lest he suffer embarassment. Also, fans of the Pistons now may be more likely to invest emotionally in the next game with the comfort that Sheed has put his credibility on the line, and why would he do that unless he knows something that the fans don’t?

As a practical matter, a guarantee before a sports match might actually have counterproductive effects by inspiring the opponent to play better and prove the guarantor wrong. Here is an essential difference between sports (or politics) and business: In the economic realm, most of the time an actor wants to see its counterparty get the job done as agreed and expected. In competition, There Can Only Be One.


But I don’t think guarantees are a bad thing. I think on the whole, guarantees could be useful devices to spice up sports matches and encourage better play by the side whose performance is guaranteed. But under current practice, NBA guarantees are meaningless.

In politics, the guarantees of McCain and Palin are particularly weak precisely because neither one has much reputation to lay on the line. Neither candidate has been particularly lauded for truth-telling in this campaign. McCain will almost surely disappear from the public stage after his likely loss next week (if he does not resign from the Senate, he will no longer be seen as a legislative lion). Palin will disappear from the national stage and return to Alaska, perhaps to rise again in 2011 or -15 after memories of the last two months have faded. All they have right now is cheap talk.

The problem with guarantees in professional sports these days is not that athletes have little reputation to lay on the line. Reputation is the stuff of endorsements, of locker-room sway, of positive coverage by reporters, and probably of success with the ladies. We certainly have seen NBA players suffer ill repute for other reasons, like punching a fan, shooting up a parking lot, getting a friend killed while driving, striking his wife, dissing the national anthem, refusing to shoot in a key playoff game, or drugging it up. The problem, rather, is that nobody seems to pay any attention anymore to breached guarantees. Attention spans are short, and especially in the playoffs, another story line is just a game away. And maybe guarantees happen too often. Like a steel cage match, they should be trotted out on the scene only about once per year.

In real (commercial) life, a failure to make good on a guarantee (after the original obligor fails to come through) results in a lawsuit. What happened when young Jameer’s teammates failed to win game 5? Did angry Orlandistas call for J-Nel’s head? Did SVG announce that Nelson would lose his starting job to Keyon Dooling? Well, no, actually; Dooling signed with New Jersey and Orlando signed 33-year-old Anthony Johnson as their backup 1. I thought Rasheed might get traded after his guarantee failed so spectacularly in ’06, but nope, three summers later he’s still around. And, no doubt, he will give us more guaran-sheeds this year.

Here is how it should be. In 1998, Mario Zagallo, coach of the Brazilian national soccer team, guaranteed a victory before the World Cup final match against France in Paris. But les Bleus took the match 3-0. Just like that (even after delivering a World Cup win in 1994) Zagallo was out of a job.

If you’re an NBA player and you want to guarantee a victory, tell us what exactly you’re going to sacrifice if you’re wrong. Or keep your mouth shut!

Friday, October 24, 2008

First-Game Premium

It is about that time to get organized and figure out what NBA games I’m planning to go to over the course of the season. In my case, it is a bit complicated – my main basketball friend has a Mon-Thurs constraint: he can only watch games four days of the week. Unfortunately, he spends the rest of his week in NYC and they don’t seem to have any NBA teams there anymore.

Checking out some of the online ticket sites, I notice an interesting pattern: the first-game premium. How much would you be willing to pay to watch the first home game vs. the second home game of the season?

Let’s take the Celtics. If we try for mid-level seats at the Garden, one ticket is about $200. Compare that with the second home game, a mere 3 days later. A comparable ticket is about $70. Would you be willing to pay an extra $130 to watch the first home game?

Now of course you may think that these two games are not the same. The opponents are different, the day of the week is different, and so on. In the Celtics case, the first game is with the Cavs, while the second game is with the Bulls. So it is fair to assume that most people would pay more to watch the Cavs. But the first home game is on a Tuesday, and the second game is on a Friday. So this goes the other way – probably more people want to watch on Friday. Perhaps the different team can account for the $130 spread, but I doubt it.

The Celtics may be a special case as winners of the NBA Finals. Maybe a lot of fans want to relive the NBA championship. But then again, I remember that Game 6 was in Boston and it was after all the biggest margin of victory in any finals clincher.

So let’s take a look at some other teams.

Lakers: Mid Levels running about $140 for Game 1 (Portland) vs. about $75 for home Game 2 (Clippers).

Pistons: Lower Level Baseline running about $55 for home Game 1 (Indiana) vs. about $35 for home Game 2 (Washington)

Bulls: Lower Level Baseline running about $100 for home Game 1 (Bucks) vs. about $80 for home Game 2 (Grizzlies)

Raptors: Endzone seats about $85 for home Game 1 (Warriors) vs. about $150 for home Game 2 (Pistons)

This last case shows something interesting – at some point, the team has to matter. In any case, I’ve decided to skip on LeBron and check out Bosh/O’Neal when they play the Celtics on 11/10.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Daily Dispatch: The First and the Worst at MSG

It may only be pre-season, but good teams still look good, and bad teams still look bad. A few noteworthy points from courtside at last night’s game at the Garden:

  • One would expect that the Knicks would be thoroughly outplayed by the Celtics. But it must have been disheartening for Knicks fans to see their team hammered by the Celtics’ second unit. The Knicks did manage to stage a comeback in the waning minutes of the 4th quarter but only after the Celts brought on their CBA squad.

  • We, at JPO, love Leon Powe. Who wouldn’t respect a guy with a life story like this? And what NBA fan wouldn’t love what Powe did in Game 2 of the Finals when he single-handedly staved off a Lakers’ comeback? Mr. Powe did not disappoint on Tuesday night, Poweverizing the Knicks with 19 and 12. These weren’t mere garbage points. It seems that Powe has developed a nice 8-foot turn-around jumper in the lane. Mark my words: Powe will be one of the top sixth men in the league and key in the Celtics’ title run this year.

  • Did someone forget to tell Kevin Garnett that it’s still pre-season? In typical KG fashion, the most intense athlete in the history of humankind was on his feet hollerin’ during pre-season garbage time, cheering on the Patrick O’Bryants and Brian Scalabrines of the world.

  • You know what the Knicks’ problem is? Their most exciting and charismatic team member is their coach.

  • I almost feel sorry for Starbury. It seems that the Knicks franchise is going out of its way to make him feel unwelcome. The Knicks’ pre-game montage features every single Knick player except Marbury.

  • As my fiancée remarked: “Sam Cassell's head looks even more alien-like in person than on TV.”

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

A Mission Statement (at least, mine)

Welcome to Jordan Pushed Off, a new blog about the National Basketball Association. We are three guys who have known each other for ten years, united by, among other things, our love of basketball, vigorous debate, careful examination of the way things are, and extreme sit-up contests.

We are avid readers of many of the best basketball blogs out there; you can imagine the list. We come not to mimic or send a rejoinder to any other writers, but to say what is not now being said. Our experience around the world, our years of training in how to think, and our willingness to see through old b-ball shibboleths will allow us to illuminate the League like it has never been lit up before.

Personally, I have to confess, I am tainted by some tribal loyalty: I grew up rooting for the Pistons. Zeke, Joe D, Worm, Spider, Microwave, Buddha, Mahorn and Laimbeer: these men were my idols, adorning the walls of my bedroom and occupying most of my discussions at the back of the school bus. I even had a shower radio on which I would listen to George Blaha announcing many of the Pistons’ 63 victories during that glorious 1989 season, while I got myself squeaky clean. I could not afford to miss a minute. Today, the Pistons still animate me, but I do have other likes, which I will reveal as these posts continue.

We are hardly the first observers to argue that Michael Jordan committed an offensive foul on the Bulls’ last play of the 98 Finals. A quick view will reveal a “push off” that would surely be called, or at least contested, in your average YMCA game. But events in recent years have made this quasar of injustice glow ever more brightly as an exemplar of what is wrong with the league. Stars allowed to take three or more steps through the lane; multi-millionaire MVP candidates allowed to pout, sulk, complain, demand trades, and generally be spoiled brats; referees swallowing their whistles for fouls in the last 30 seconds of a game (except when a foul could favor a preferred team or sink a villainous one). Of course the people demand drama, and this league provides entertainment. But without risk, where is drama? If the superheroes can effortlessly dodge bullets forever, like Jack Bauer with better hops, where is the challenge? It is hardly controversial (but then again…) that the rule of law leads to prosperity. (If we believe that latter link, does that mean we should always trust the Dear Leader Stern?)



We will talk about much, much more, over the next weeks and months, including all sorts of random basketball-related shizz. Hope you keep reading!